WI United Ba'athist Arab Republic of Syria-Iraq?

Minty_Fresh

Banned
Syrian and Iraqi Ba'athism was divided by ethnicity, religion, and to an extent, ideology. To bridge this gap, you'd need either a Sunni Arab Ba'athist leader of Syria or a Shiite Ba'athist leader of Iraq. Also, Saddam was too much of a control freak to share power, so he'd need to be the one in control if you go that route.
 
Syrian and Iraqi Ba'athism was divided by ethnicity, religion, and to an extent, ideology. To bridge this gap, you'd need either a Sunni Arab Ba'athist leader of Syria or a Shiite Ba'athist leader of Iraq. Also, Saddam was too much of a control freak to share power, so he'd need to be the one in control if you go that route.

WI he died via sickness or accident, and al-Bakr's proposed merger with Hafez al-Assad went through?
 
I discuss the history of proposed Syria-Iraq unions at http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.what-if/msg/bea92fb3580a2cf0

"In 1963, there were talks on a Syria-Iraq union, the Ba'ath party being
in control of both countries. Whatever chance there was for unity was
lost on November 18, 1963 when the Iraqi Ba'athists were overthrown by
General Arif. When in 1968 the Ba'athists regained power in Iraq, there
not only was no unity, but relations between the two countries sharply
deteriorated. One reason is that the Iraqi Ba'athists' leadership (Ahmed
Hassan al-Bakr and his relative Saddam Hussein) had been selected by the
old 'National Command' of the Ba'ath (led by Michel Aflaq, who had
founded the party), and the National Command had lost power in Damascus
in 1966. So the question is, had the National Command stayed in power in
Syria, would there have been a union after 1968? I doubt it, at least
whether there would have been a lasting union. By 1968 it was apparent
that Bakr and Saddam Hussein, even if originally designated by Aflaq et
al, were more Iraqi nationalist than Arab nationalist. The Syrians for
their part remembered the way Egypt had dominated the UAR and had in
effect treated Syria as a mere province. This made them reluctant to get
into any more unions with more powerful nations.

"In any event, after 1963 the Syrian military was largely dominated by
religious minorities (especially Alawites like Assad) who had reason to
be suspicious that any Syria-Iraq union would be dominated by Sunnis.

"After years of bitter recriminations between the two Ba'athist regimes,
there was again talk of unity in 1978-79. This was the result of Camp
David, which had put the Syrian regime in a dangerous position--it could
no longer count on Egyptian help against Israel. A 'Charter of Joint
National Action' was arrived at, and a joint defense pact was supposed to
'provide the groundwork for complete military union.' But nothing ever
came of this--Syria wanted military support from Iraq, including the
financing of arms purchases, but not any merger of the two armies. Syria
also balked at unifying the two Ba'ath parties. Furthermore, the Iraqis
wanted a unitary state; the Syrians nothing more than a loose federation.
Finally, the Iranian revolution gave the Syrians an alternative to an
alliance with Iraq. Soon Iraqi-Syrian relations returned to a state of
open conflict.

"One final point on the 'unity' moves of 1978-9: both superpowers opposed
them (as did most Arab regimes). The US viewed a union of two 'radical'
Arab states as a threat to Israel and to Western interests in the Middle
East. More interesting is that the USSR while not opposed to better
relations among its Arab allies, opposed any close union. Evgenii
Primakov, then director of the Institute for Middle East Studies at the
Soviet Academy of Sciences warned at the congress of the (pro-Assad)
Syrian Communist Party in early 1979 that any such union would entail
increasing openings to the West. What he did not say, but doubtless had
in mind, was that a union of the two countries would have enhanced their
bargaining power vis-a-vis the USSR.

"For a detailed discussion of the Iraq-Syrian conflict, see a book on
which I have heavily relied here: Eberhard Kienle, *Ba'th v. Ba'th: The
conflict between Syria and Iraq 1968-1989 (1990)."
 
Last edited:
Hmm, so maybe if General Arif's 1963 coup against the Ba'athists in Iraq is foiled, the union talks can progress?

Was the Syrian Ba'ath Party more amenable at the time?

Also, assuming unification occurs, what would this unified Ba'athist state look like?

Will Jordan, Kuwait, and Lebanon be swallowed up eventually? I forsee wars with an Israel that would be feeling very threatened. And the Arab monarchies would be sweating too.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Hmm, so maybe if General Arif's 1963 coup against the Ba'athists in Iraq is foiled, the union talks can progress?

Was the Syrian Ba'ath Party more amenable at the time?

Also, assuming unification occurs, what would this unified Ba'athist state look like?

Will Jordan, Kuwait, and Lebanon be swallowed up eventually? I forsee wars with an Israel that would be feeling very threatened. And the Arab monarchies would be sweating too.
I think the main obstacle is Syria's bad experiences with the UAR and Syria's vision of a loose federation (because the bad experiences with the UAR) and Iraq's vision of a centralized state.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Who runs the secret police for the new state ?

If you can't answer that, then there is no Ba'athist state covering Iraq and Syria.
 
It would be as if you had Europeans int he Interwar Period all claim to be led by Fascists. It is a term. And one that often means unifying against neighboring states. Besides, loads of countries were formed around the main cities and their populace culturally and linguistically took after those cities. Who would be the capital for this? Damascus or Baghdad? And if it was secular, would Lebanon be roped into it as well? And what do you guys think about the PLO or some others managing to overthrow the King of Jordan? Would that make it amiable to joining to union or would such a possibility spell a preemptive strike by Israel?
 
Who runs the secret police for the new state ?

If you can't answer that, then there is no Ba'athist state covering Iraq and Syria.

Most likely the combined state would be a confederation. The central government would handle a common foreign policy, but everything else would be done by the constituent components. So Iraq and Syria would still exist, and those governments would still handle domestic policy. Likely each would have its own secret police within its own borders. They would probably also have their own armies.

There would be a new layer of government on top of the old governments. They would handle foreign policy, coordinate military in an combined Arab command, and a customs union (and perhaps single market). No doubt the new central government would accrue powers over time.
 
Top